DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 25 March 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 and Species A, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 25 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining Groups I and II together does not pose a serious burden for the examiner. This is not found persuasive because as evidenced by the prior art applied below, finding the claimed structure does not result in finding the method of claim 15, for example the conductive layer required by claims 1 and 8 do not have to form a capacitive sensor as currently claimed. Available prior art that discloses applicant’s claimed structure as written in claims 1 and 8 are optical sensors. In addition, the available prior art teaches the claimed structure but does not inherently directly sense or calculate a weight while the method requires a weight calculation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second light transmission medium of claims 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the language, “a conductive layer, within the interior space of the container body, that forms a capacitive sensor based on a weight of the item,” is indefinite.
It is not clear how the conductive layer forms a capacitive sensor since a layer in and of itself is not capable of forming a sensor. In addition, how is a sensor formed “based on a weight”? A sensor can be formed to help calculate weight but is not formed based on a weight.
Furthermore, a capacitor measures changes in an electrostatic field, applicant’s conductive layer is not measuring capacitance or a change in electrostatic field. The written description has no discussion of measuring any electrostatic field in terms of the light transmission medium, see [0057]. In the instant application, the capacitive sensor is disclosed as using a strain gauge load, [0059]. The embodiment using the “conductive layer” and light forms an optical sensor, not a capacitor.
For the purposes of examination, a layer that is capable of conducting energy is interpreted as meeting the limitation of “a conductive layer.” No structure elements disclosed that are able to form a capacitive sensor or any type of sensor. A sensor requires a sensing element, a transduction element, and a signal processing/conditioning unit; there is no signal processing unit claimed.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “the light is transmitted a plurality of times in the first portion,” is unclear. It is not clear what parameters must be met to satisfy this limitation and there is no written description of the number of times the light is transmitted. If light is shined into a solid medium that allows light to pass through, the “transmission” or passing through the medium will happen at least twice, once as the light is shown through and once upon the light being reflected. Alternatively, the light transmitted a plurality of times could mean that the light emitter pulses light or there are multiple lights. For the purposes of examination, a plurality of light transmissions is interpreted as being satisfied as light is reflected back from a surface of a medium, within the medium.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation, “a top surface of the first light transmission medium transmits the light,” is indefinite. In the instant invention, the top surface reflects light and only allows some light to pass (not “transmit,” per se) through when a gap between the light transmission medium and a second mediums is less than the wavelength of the light. With this in mind, the limitation is lacking information and it is unclear what satisfies the claim language. For the purposes of examination, it is understood that a surface of the light transmission medium is capable of allowing light to pass through (applicant’s meaning of “transmit”).
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nissl (US 4083254).
Regarding claim 1, Nissl discloses a storage system comprising:
a container body at 12 having an interior space and that stores an item 1;
a light transmission medium 3 within the container body, wherein the light transmission medium divides the interior space into a first portion (above) and a second portion (below), further wherein the item is disposed within the second portion, fig. 1;
a light emitter 8 that emits emitted light into the first portion towards the light transmission medium, wherein the light transmission medium transmits the emitted light;
a light receiver (photocell 9) to receive the emitted light that is transmitted by the light transmission medium and determine a light intensity measurement, col. 3: 60-66; and
a conductive layer 2, within the interior space of the container body, that is capable of being part of a capacitive sensor. The device of Nissl is used to calculate inertial forces which is data that can be used to calculate weight.
Regarding claim 3, Nissl discloses, fig. 1 that the conductive layer 2 directly supports the item.
Regarding claim 4, Nissl discloses that the light transmission medium 3 comprises a glass screen that supports the conductive layer, col. 3: 30-33.
Regarding claim 5, Nissl discloses that the light emitter emits the light into the glass screen, fig. 1, col. 3: 30-end.
Regarding claim 6, Nissl discloses that the conductive layer is a metallic lining, col. 3: 41-45.
Regarding claim 7, Nissl discloses that the light within the light transmission medium reflects and is transmitted back and forth through the light transmission medium a plurality of times, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, Nissl discloses a storage system comprising:
a container body at 12 having an interior space and that stores an item 1;
a first light transmission medium 3 within the container body, wherein the first light transmission medium divides the interior space into a first (lower) portion and a second (upper) portion, further wherein the item is disposed within the second portion, fig. 1;
a light emitter 8 that emits emitted light into the first portion towards the light transmission medium; and
a light receiver 9 to receive the emitted light that is transmitted by the light transmission medium and determine a light intensity measurement, wherein the first light transmission medium supports the item and transmits the emitted light.
Regarding claim 11, Nissl discloses that a top surface of the first light transmission medium allows some light to pass into the space 4 and some light to reflect, fig. 1, col. 1: 50-end.
Regarding claim 12, Nissl discloses that the light transmission medium 3 comprises a glass, col. 3: 30-33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over. LeBrun (US 2016/0048657) in view of Nissl.
Regarding claim 1, 8, LeBrun discloses a storage system comprising:
a container body (101 and 102, [0027]), having an interior space and that stores an item;
as disclosed in [0047-0050] LeBrun further discloses an optical sensor for sensing and calculating weight [0025], [0046-0050]. The optical sensor includes an LED (light emitter) that emits emitted light between a metallic plate/ PCB (printed circuit board), 1201] and a moving metallic plate (sliding plate 1202 and 1203 show the two positions of the sliding plate [0047]) that supports pills, 1205, [0046].
Light is reflected between the plates to a light receiver (photoreceiver) to receive the reflected light to determine a distance between the two plates [0050].
The sliding plate supports the pills and divides the inside of the container into a space where the pills are held and another space where the PCB is located, fig. 12.
LeBrun does not disclose the claimed type of optical sensor.
However, Nissl is analogous art in regard to optical sensors used for measuring physical properties of vector quantities (Nissl measures inertial acceleration, weight is also a vector quantity).
Nissl teaches an optical sensor having a light transmission medium a container body at 12 having an interior space and that stores an item 1;
a first light transmission medium 3 within the container body, wherein the first light transmission medium divides the interior space into a first (lower) portion and a second (upper) portion, further wherein the item is disposed within the second portion, fig. 1;
a light emitter 8 that emits emitted light into the first portion towards the light transmission medium;
a light receiver 9 to receive the emitted light that is transmitted by the light transmission medium and determine a light intensity measurement, wherein the first light transmission medium supports the item and transmits the emitted light; and
a conductive layer 2, within the interior space of the container body, that is capable of being part of a capacitive sensor. The device of Nissl is used to calculate inertial forces which is data that can be used to calculate weight.
Like LeBrun, who uses light reflection to measure distance between two plates, the optical sensor of Nissl also measures the distance of a gap 4 between two plates.
The optical sensor of Nissl avoids the problem of irregular characteristics due to temperature changes or aging, col. 1; 17-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the optical sensor of LeBrun with the optical sensor of Nissl since the substitution of using one type of optical sensor that uses light reflection to measure change in a gap between two plates for another optical sensor also using the measurement of light reflection to determine the change in a gap between two plates is within the sill set of one of ordinary skill in the art and yields the same predictable function of measuring a gap based on a change in force. In addition, as applied above, the optical sensor of Nissl provides the benefit of being less irregular or erratic as a result of temperature or aging influences.
The data captured by the photosensor of LeBrun as modified Nissl is capable of being used to determine weight.
Regarding claim 2, LeBrun further discloses that the system includes a processing means ([1201 that is configured to determine the weight of the item based on the light intensity measurement, wherein the light emitter is a light emitting diode, and the light receiver is a photodiode (LeBrun discloses a photoreceiver which includes a photodiode).
Regarding claim 3, as seen in fig. 12 of LeBrun, the metal layer directly supports the item 1205.
Regarding claims 4, 5, LeBrun as modified above by Nissl teaches the light emitter emits the light into light transmission medium which comprises a glass screen that supports the metallic conductive layer, col. 3: 30-33 of Nissl.
Regarding claim 6, the optical sensor of LeBrun as modified by Nissl has a metal layer col. 3: 41-45 of Nissl.
Regarding claim 7, LeBrun as modified above by Nissl teaches that the light within the light transmission medium reflects and is transmitted back and forth through the light transmission medium a plurality of times, fig. 1 of Nissl.
Regarding claim 9, LeBrun further discloses that the system includes a processing means that is configured to determine the weight of the item (change is sensed by a printed circuit board and correlated to a distance and a weight is calculated [0047], and in [0050], LeBrun discloses the sensor based on the light intensity measurement, [0046-0047, 0050], if a weight is calculated, a processor is inherently present) and [0050] wherein the light emitter is a light emitting diode, and the light receiver is a photodiode (LeBrun discloses a photoreceiver which includes a photodiode).
Regarding claim 11, LeBrun as modified above by Nissl teaches that a top surface of the first light transmission medium allows some light to pass into the space 4 and some light to reflect, fig. 1, col. 1: 50-end.
Regarding claim 12, LeBrun as modified above by Nissl teaches that the light transmission medium 3 comprises a glass, col. 3: 30-33 of Nissl.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBrun and Nissl as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Li (US 2016/0361234).
Regarding claim 10, the references applied above teach all of claim 9, as applied above. LeBrun further discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) [0050].
LeBrun does not disclose that printed (electronic) circuit board includes the processor that forms a bottom surface of the storage system.
Li discloses a container body with an interior space for storing medication, with a weight sensing module 104 and a control module 101 connected with the weight module in the base of the body for measuring the weight of the medication, the weight sensing module being above the control module 101 (“weight sensing module 104 can be mounted uppermost at the bottom…”) [0058], fig. 1.
Li further discloses that the control module has a processor (dose calculation module 1014) for determining the weight of medication based on input from the weight sensing module [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap based optical sensor and PCB for calculating weight of LeBrun as modified above to be placed in the bottom surface of the storage system as taught by Li in order to allow the medication to be weighed while the cap is not on the container, for example when filling the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights